I then chose a new barrister based in london , my solicitor's instructions didn't fair much better than his previous ones in my opinion,he then arranged a new conference around end of october 2003 to my surprise it went reasonably well and he advised me that i had strong merit in my present action against my former legal advisors for negligence which also applied to the defendants in the original action been gary hather plant hire which i already knew.Over a period of time since his involvement on my case which was from november 2002 he made some ridiculous mistakes he failed to correct which now looking back doesn't surprise me one bit i then decided to instruct a new solicitor based in a derbyshire practice due to the actions of the previous solicitor trying to obstruct my case,he took over as acting solicitor in january 2003.I then decided to contact the manufactures j.c.b around january-february 2003 for some information and as to why they claimed in a letter dated december 9th 1996 operatives had to stand on the main frame in order to refuel the j.c.b i had my accident on this is when i discovered about the safety step , this information was disclosed to me during a telephone conversation with mr allsop who provided the original information in the letter mentioned above i then passed on this information to my new instructing solicitor and took him until november 2003 to obtain this
information.This was not obtained by the expert witness or the solicitor's in the present action due to there negligence as this information had been available since the early 90's or long before the 90's. My acting solicitor arranged a further conference around early october 2003 and it went reasonably well and i informed my new barrister about the safety step . There was a further conference with a new queens council in january 2004 i was none to pleased has he didn't stick to the facts of the case and all they wanted to do was bury the case at mediation basically sell me out for little money as possible by bullying me behind close doors or they would pull the plug on the case.

I then decided to instruct further a new solicitor based at a mansfield practice nottingham around the june-july 2004 he was a senior partner, he officially took over conduct of my case in october once legal aid certificate had been amended to his name as instructing solicitor.In january-march 2005 the defendants lawyers applied to the courts to have my case struck out as they claimed my instructing solicitor had not disclosed some documents by a certain date set down by the courts this just been one day late and that my case had merit ,this was just a tactical move on there part so the judge set down a one day hearing at the high in london .So the one day hearing arrived in july 2005,the judge decided that the defendants claim by the disclosure of the documents by one day was trivial and that there was strong merit for my case to go to trial and to the fact the defendants was prepared to defend the action at a trial so the judge set down a trial date for december 2005.

I made an appointment with my instructing solicitor on the september 1st 2005 regarding my trial statement as i wasn't happy with some of the things he had put in and i wanted it corrected to my instructions and reduced it by five pages as what he put in was not required,he then called me into his office two weeks later just the day before the disclosure date set down by the high court to sign my statement and i discovered he hadn't prepared it to my instructions and was reluctant to sign it but i felt under pressure to do so due to the court had set down a disclosure date. Several weeks had passed and to my surprise another copy of my statement arrived through the post and discovered that my acting solicitor had tampered with my trial statement by crossing out with a black felt pen the crucial evidence regarding the safety step so the trial judge couldn't read it to obstruct the case as this evidence had already been disclosed in the copy for the defense lawyer's,and crossed allot of the things out that wasn't required in the first place and what i didn't want put in.So the time passed until the time finally arrived for the trial to begin in december 2005 i then chose to instruct a new queens council this time was a female to represent me at the trial in december 2005. .I'm pleased to say that i managed to get the evidence regarding the safety step introduced during the trial, 1 would also like to point out i did not have a expert witness at the trial to support my case and also to explain the evidence provided by the manufacturers j.c.b..

After the trial in december 2005 the trial judge handed down his judgment at the end of january 2006 and basically he hadn't read all the evidence properly and went against what he said in court to the fact he just agreed with the defendants in this action that there was a serious risk that if i had gone into trial i would of lost my case and i would of been a bad witness basically this was to justify there actions saying it was three people against me,been the defendants in the original action gary hather plant hire back in december 12th 1996 so his judgment was based on circumstantial evidence , this in effect is inadmissible and not evidence of fact , that was put forward as a defense by my former employer gary hather and the two men involved in the accident been roy haynes and stephen derbyshire. Hence you have the conflict of interest by the trial judge in favor of the defendants in the present action i.e. professional negligence case .i then had a new conference with my legal team in february 2006 in which they decided to appeal against the trial judges judgment instead of a Applying for a retrial which i wanted based on the above paragraph.My instructing solicitor failed again to carry out my instructions to inform queens council that the evidence of the safety step wasn't included in the appeal documents that was used at the trial in december 2005 the reason i can state this was the fact i wasn't provided with a amended copy this again he was trying to obstruct the case as he had tampered with my statement, just as a previous instructing solicitor back in 2002 tried to obstruct the case.

The appeal was a farce just as much as the trial in december 2005,The appeal judges also didn't look at the evidence properly .made things up to suit themselves and basically wasn't interested in the case or the common sense to order a re-trial hence you have the conflict of interest against the trial judges .None of the lawyer's,judges,queens council,junior barristers or lawyer's that had been involved with my case fully applied them selves to my case from the beginning of january 1990 and who have also been involved in the case since november 2002 Looking back now the female queens council in my opinion did a reasonable job at the trial in my view and supported my case to a but didn't fight hard enough for me and was in my opinion like a pussy cat in court and missed some important facts out. She gave up the fight once the trial judge and appeal judges put a stop to my case,as i think she should of protested at the way the trial judge ,appeal judges were dealing with with my case as in my opinion they just turned the case into one big joke.

1

Here About The Female Trainee Lawyer Who Dropped Her Briefs And Became A Solicitor..

2

Here About A Male Lawyer Who Wanted To Become A Jehovah Witness Said He Hadn't Witnessed The Accident But Would Love Yo Take The Case On